Is it worth recording new albums?

[Rhapsody of Fire]

Yes, it is worth recording new albums. Always. Never too late.

http://youtu.be/N7_iLMq8REo

[wind_up_toy]

The other thing I've been mulling over is whether it's a good thing that you can download single tracks off albums.

On one hand, your music is more accessible to the casual fan whereas on the other they may go straight for the hits or the radio friendly tracks.

[wind_up_toy]

Yes, it is worth recording new albums. Always. Never too late.

http://youtu.be/N7_iLMq8REo

I thought the posthumous Michael Jackson albums were just demos and left overs that have been polished by various producers?

[pitkin88]

The three covers played live were really just average run throughs. Those songs are such classics that it would be very hard to add anything to them that might make them worth hearing. The assorted guests wont help either as I doubt we will get a uniform band sound. God knows when the thing will be released. A vanity project at best.

[Crazy Little Child]

The other thing I've been mulling over is whether it's a good thing that you can download single tracks off albums.

On one hand, your music is more accessible to the casual fan whereas on the other they may go straight for the hits or the radio friendly tracks.

Until the late 1960s, the singles market was the big deal, with full-length LPs making up the smaller proportion of music sales (well, classical & jazz aside). So the return of the single, while it may be a reflection of technological change, is not without precedent in the history of recorded music sales and marketing.

But a hit single, or a single track licensed to a tv commercial or film, is probably more profitable than a whole album in today's market, for sure. Just to add some weight to JJ's argument that it's not worth the bother.

[mr.barlow]

Until the late 1960s, the singles market was the big deal, with full-length LPs making up the smaller proportion of music sales (well, classical & jazz aside). So the return of the single, while it may be a reflection of technological change, is not without precedent in the history of recorded music sales and marketing.

But a hit single, or a single track licensed to a tv commercial or film, is probably more profitable than a whole album in today's market, for sure. Just to add some weight to JJ's argument that it's not worth the bother.[/quote]


You're 100% correct. Technology has brought us back to where it all started. Back in the beginnings of recorded music for the phonograph with the 78RPM every record was basically a single. Rock n roll was originally a singles industry. Once the LP technology became available artists--especially jazz artists--took advantage of it--mainly as a way to express the true art of jazz in it's longform. Rock n roll then followed suit--the rock n roll artist followed the jazz artists lead in making it an artform--which led to the beginning of the rock n roll album--written as a full album--not just a bunch of singles and b-sides put on a 33RPM LP record. Now--due to various reasons--namely technology, comsumer trends and money, we are back to a new age of "the single". A lot of bands were releasing full albums that contained maybe at most 3 decent songs and the rest filler--consumers finally got smart and now have the means just to buy the good songs. Also, they are now able to do this with back catalog--killing the sales of those full length albums. Thus--why should artists (and labels) spend the money to record a full album of new material? It's the new age of the single and it's here to stay.

[A_MichaelUK]

>The three covers played live were really just average run throughs.

Who says? You said you never saw any of those shows. If you're getting a lot of your information from bootlegs or YouTube, that explains a lot of your posts. Also, it was four cover songs that were played, not "three" (it was originally six which was too many) and judging by the reactions at the several shows I went to, almost everyone thought there were incredible performances of "Foxy Lady" and "Break On Through" (it was the version of "Back Door Man" and "I Can See For Miles" which were just incredibly dreary and after some tantrums from me, they were removed).

> Those songs are such classics that it would be very hard to add anything to them that might make them worth hearing.

Would it be impossible, though?

> The assorted guests wont help either as I doubt we will get a uniform band sound.

Does it have to be "uniform"?

>God knows when the thing will be released.

Why do you care? You don't sound exactly desperate to hear it.

>A vanity project at best.

I don't disagree it might be "A vanity project" but I'm not sure I agree about the "at best part", especially as you haven't heard it.

[A_MichaelUK]

>But a hit single, or a single track licensed to a tv commercial or film, is probably more profitable than a whole album in today's market, for sure. Just to add some weight to JJ's argument that it's not worth the bother.

There is not an infinite number of those, though.

[kevinuk81]

Andy, are you saying you are the sole person responsible for having 2 cover songs removed from the setlist?

[Robbie]

Andy wrote:(it was the version of "Back Door Man" and "I Can See For Miles" which were just incredibly dreary and after some tantrums from me, they were removed)
I was a little puzzled by this-in the past you have been at pains to point out you were not part of the "organisation". Was the cover section shortened because of your feedback? Am not having a go Andy,
just interested in the level of your involvement in the set list. And for what its worth I am glad it was shortened as I didn't enjoy the covers at all. Four was too many for me!!

[Robbie]

Sorry missed Kevin's post too-he seems to be asking the same question.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Andy, are you saying you are the sole person responsible for having 2 cover songs removed from the setlist?

Not solely - I think the complaints on this board at that time (if you remember back to that thread or threads) had a lot to do with it as well (probably more, actually).

[A_MichaelUK]

> Was the cover section shortened because of your feedback?

Not just because of mine, no.

>Am not having a go Andy,

I know.

>just interested in the level of your involvement in the set list.

I was obviously exaggerating about the effect of my complaints. The feedback here had a lot to do with it as well and the two songs I mentioned were the obvious ones to be removed.

>Four was too many for me!!

I agree but it's what Alice wanted to do and so you have to make the best of that situation.

[pitkin88]

>The three covers played live were really just average run throughs.

Who says? You said you never saw any of those shows. If you're getting a lot of your information from bootlegs or YouTube, that explains a lot of your posts. Also, it was four cover songs that were played, not "three" (it was originally six which was too many) and judging by the reactions at the several shows I went to, almost everyone thought there were incredible performances of "Foxy Lady" and "Break On Through" (it was the version of "Back Door Man" and "I Can See For Miles" which were just incredibly dreary and after some tantrums from me, they were removed).

> Those songs are such classics that it would be very hard to add anything to them that might make them worth hearing.

Would it be impossible, though?

> The assorted guests wont help either as I doubt we will get a uniform band sound.

Does it have to be "uniform"?

>God knows when the thing will be released.

Why do you care? You don't sound exactly desperate to hear it.

>A vanity project at best.

I don't disagree it might be "A vanity project" but I'm not sure I agree about the "at best part", especially as you haven't heard it.

You know it is very easy to hit the quote button to reply so people know who you are quoting. Yes I say so. Yes I heard those covers on Youtube. The quality was good enough to make an informed opinion. Maybe you have problems with your hearing.

A uniformed sound sound gives the album a feel. Sorry but unless you are doing something completely different w Hendrix ( maybe Devo ) you are wasting your time.

It is no concern of your why I care. i care enough to give it a listen. Enough said.

[Rhapsody of Fire]

Yes, it is worth recording new albums. Always. Never too late.

http://youtu.be/N7_iLMq8REo

I thought the posthumous Michael Jackson albums were just demos and left overs that have been polished by various producers?

Michael was a perfectionist about his music, and he recorded many songs, than he ever released. Producers said that they are very proud and honored to give this music to the world.

[wind_up_toy]

Yes, it is worth recording new albums. Always. Never too late.

http://youtu.be/N7_iLMq8REo

I thought the posthumous Michael Jackson albums were just demos and left overs that have been polished by various producers?

Michael was a perfectionist about his music, and he recorded many songs, than he ever released. Producers said that they are very proud and honored to give this music to the world.

And they gave their services for free right?

[A_MichaelUK]

>You know it is very easy to hit the quote button to reply so people know who you are quoting.

I know but I like to refer to specific quotes and given that I tend to reply quite quickly to posts, I suspect people know who I am replying to.

> Yes I say so. Yes I heard those covers on Youtube. The quality was good enough to make an informed opinion. Maybe you have problems with your hearing.

No, I think that actually being there gives you a different perspective than relying on your method.

>A uniformed sound sound gives the album a feel.

Who says it had to have "a feel"? I don't understand where, all of a sudden, these strict rules have appeared from.

>Sorry but unless you are doing something completely different w Hendrix ( maybe Devo ) you are wasting your time.

I think most cover versions are pretty faithful to the originals but still can sound sufficiently different. What are you expecting? A reggae version of "Break On Through" or something?

>It is no concern of your why I care. i care enough to give it a listen. Enough said.

Is there any point? You seem to have already made your mind up about it so I don't understand why you not only want to hear it but can't wait to do so. It sounds like a contradiction.

[Si]

And they gave their services for free right?

My thoughts exactly. Didn`t know anything about this until this thread, but if anyone thinks this is done for anything other then making money out of a dead celebrity they are deluded.
Are all the royalties going to a (childrens?) charity? If not they are out to make a easy buck from existing material Jackson likely didn't feel was good enough to release.

By all means release this stuff (album, bonus tracks, whatever) but don`t pretend you are doing it for anything but money.

Having said that your quote of "giving this music to the world" is probably partially true (piracy), and maybe they are being sarcastic haha

[wind_up_toy]

I'm not big on my MJ knowledge but I believe royalties go to his estate, I'm unsure whether that's before or after others take their cut though (I suspect the latter).

There are elements of the fan base who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the last 2 albums as they do not believe that the artist would have wanted the music to have seen the light of day (where it gets muddied is that some tracks where in progress when he died and others were just rejected from other periods of his life). This might explain why 'Michael' can currently be purchased new on CD for £1.60 INCLUDING DELIVERY on Amazon.

[Rhapsody of Fire]

And they gave their services for free right?

My thoughts exactly. Didn`t know anything about this until this thread, but if anyone thinks this is done for anything other then making money out of a dead celebrity they are deluded.
Are all the royalties going to a (childrens?) charity? If not they are out to make a easy buck from existing material Jackson likely didn't feel was good enough to release.

By all means release this stuff (album, bonus tracks, whatever) but don`t pretend you are doing it for anything but money.

Having said that your quote of "giving this music to the world" is probably partially true (piracy), and maybe they are being sarcastic haha

Of course, money makes the world go round.